4.5 Article

Clay-Magnetite Co-Aggregates for Efficient Magnetic Removal of Organic and Inorganic Pollutants

期刊

MINERALS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/min11090927

关键词

remediation; magnetic clays; particle aggregates

资金

  1. SGCyT-UNS [PGI 24/Q083]
  2. ANPCYT-MINCYT [PICT 2018/03592]
  3. CONICET [11220150100769CO, 23820190100022CO, 20720150100031CO]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By studying the behavior of montmorillonite-magnetite mixtures in aqueous dispersions and evaluating their adsorbing properties, it was found that the montmorillonite content mainly influenced the adsorption of cationic organic pollutants, while the magnetite content mainly influenced the adsorption of anionic inorganic pollutants.
This work reports the behavior of montmorillonite-magnetite mixtures of varying composition in aqueous dispersions and evaluates their adsorbing properties using a cationic organic pollutant, methylene blue (MB+), and an anionic inorganic pollutant, arsenate (As(V)), as the adsorbing species. The effects of the presence of montmorillonite on the As(V) adsorption by magnetite and the effects of magnetite on the MB+ adsorption by the clay were specially addressed. The simple mixture of a montmorillonite dispersion with a magnetite dispersion led to the spontaneous formation of montmorillonite-magnetite co-aggregates. These co-aggregates showed a unimodal electrophoretic mobility distribution, with no evidence of the presence of separate populations of montmorillonite or magnetite. The application of a magnetic field confirmed the formation of co-aggregates and showed that their separation rate increased as the magnetite content increased. Adsorption studies as a function of the aggregate composition demonstrated that MB+ uptake was mainly controlled by the content of montmorillonite, while As(V) adsorption was mainly controlled by the content of Fe3O4. This permits an easy tuning of the adsorbing properties of cations and anions by controlling the composition of the system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据